That's a fair point about the punches. But everyone views things with the hindsight of 20/20. Listening to Roy do commentary on fights both during is prime and afterwards clearly points to him being highly knowledgeable about the technical side of boxing. Yes, if Roy had practiced more using a traditional guard he may have well been able to change his style once he slowed.
The impression that a man can fight for 15 years, not be hit flush via bad technical skills or a glass jaw enough to actually beat him says more to me about him being exceptionally great. Those arguments all lead back to same points over and over. Roy came a weak era and he didn't lose because of weight. Yet those same arguments also are used to take away from what he did accomplish when he completely outclassed james toney who was p4p #1 at the time and undefeated. Points are made about Toney being weight drained. It's actually convenient that people just wait until someone loses to rip them apart. Meanwhile before they loses everything said is washed away? Someone said they should wait until one is completely done fighting before making a judgement on them. Roy was 35 when he lost had been fighting for 16 years. Arguably 4-6 years past his prime. Had he retired at 32-33 he'd easily be top 5 all time. I mean is anyone really counting the fights that holyfield is competing in now? Or Roy for that matter?
I can imagine Floyd losing to Pacman, then all of sudden Floyd is torn apart. But if he happens to destroy pac. They will say, he's just too good and who didn't see it coming, pac's never been in the ring with something like floyd blah blah, then demand that floyd move up to 160 or something. Or at least keep fighting until he loses.
Let's be really clear. It is really hard to argue Roy fought in anything but a crummy era. But it is impossible to not stand in awe of what he did to James Toney, a boxing textbook, Virgil Hill, a fine fighter and Montell Griffin, the only time Roy was terrifying. Those are startling performances.
There is pretty close to indisputable evidence Roy was technically unsound. I don't care how he talked, I care what he did! Here is the evidence. Roy went from seeimingly unbeatable to being unable to compete with good fighters almost overnight (in boxing terms). He simply lost it. Now skill doesn't fade that fast, and craft, knowing what you're doing, never really fades. It is native talent that dissappears like that. Once it goes? One must fall back on skill and craft. But if those aren't sound? Look out below. That is what happened to Roy.
Compare him to his peers in time. At 37 Evander Holyfield could still compete with a guy many here think was great in Lennox Lewis. At 40 he could still compete with ranked heavies. Why? He was slower and his reflexes were faded but his skills and craft remained what they had always been, sound. James Toney, who given the way he abused himself should have had a short career? At 35 he defeated a top ranked cruiser in Jirov and at 38 he was competitive with top heavy. Same reasons. Juan Manuel Marquez at 35 became the lightweight champ and has beaten ranked guys three times since, yet he is clearly slowing. BHOP? Well, do we need to spend the time?
What was different between Roy's decline and these other guys? Roy was technically unsound. He frequently crossed his feet, he frequently stepped with the wrong foot and his defense was all reflexes, not developed skill.
Now in my view what happened in and after the Tarver fight doesn't mean much in placing him historically, he clearly was no longer the same guy. But when I imagine him competing with the very best over time? I'm comfortable his technical flaws would be recognized and exploited. Now does that mean he'd always lose to those guys? Not in my mind. What it means is one just can't wish it away.
As regards Floyd? he HAS to be slowing, right? I mean he's what 34 now? But wouldn't you be shocked, and I mean shocked, if Manny just walked through him? I'd be stunned. Why? Because Floyd is technically excellent and Manny is technically inconsistent. Floyd has, and I suspect will, age gracefully because his skill and craft are excellent away from his native talent.
Had Roy retired at 32-33? By what possible criteria, other than a vivid imagination, put him anywhere close to the top five
? I mean look at my Ezzard summary. 21 wins over HOFers and he beat 40 ranked guys while going from 160-heavy. And at heavy he didn't beat one guy, he beat a passell of them. And NOBODY puts Ezzard in the top five.
When we look back at the guys we are comparing Roy to? Remember we also know how they finished and faded. There are no rose colored glasses freezing, for example, Billy Conn in place. By the time he was 28 he was DONE, and I mean done the way Roy is done. Why? Well four years in the Navy without touching a glove will do that to you.
Lastly, please understand that my views on Roy are limited to comparing him to other great fighters. The starting point with Roy is he accomplished more than 99.99999% of all fighters who ever walked.
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: Roy Jones, where did it all go wrong?
Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui
Let's be really clear. It is really hard to argue Roy fought in anything but a crummy era. But it is impossible to not stand in awe of what he did to James Toney, a boxing textbook, Virgil Hill, a fine fighter and Montell Griffin, the only time Roy was terrifying. Those are startling performances.That's a fair point about the punches. But everyone views things with the hindsight of 20/20. Listening to Roy do commentary on fights both during is prime and afterwards clearly points to him being highly knowledgeable about the technical side of boxing. Yes, if Roy had practiced more using a traditional guard he may have well been able to change his style once he slowed.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks